PDA

View Full Version : Climate gate 2.0



Zin
11/23/2011, 02:49 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

I looks like some more emails have been released showing this fraud for what it is.

Here is an example of one of the many disgusting emails:


2563> Pitock

">(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to
>refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not
>matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the
>journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation.
>To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
>proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might
>work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.
>(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being
>embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature.
>Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue editors”, in line with current
>international practice? Or is that defamatory?”

I am curious how far the scientific process will be set back due to the fraud brought upon us by liberal scientist and politicians. At least Al Gore was able to buy a new mansion at the expense of suckers.

Zin
11/23/2011, 02:53 PM
Another example:


Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from
looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original
unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used
to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
happy about not releasing the original station data.
(…)
Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office
to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most
likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 03:11 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

I looks like some more emails have been released showing this fraud for what it is.

Here is an example of one of the many disgusting emails:




I am curious how far the scientific process will be set back due to the fraud brought upon us by liberal scientist and politicians. At least Al Gore was able to buy a new mansion at the expense of suckers.

Let me save Midtowner the trouble............"quit cherry picking", I doubt the validity of those documents".

There, that will fully cover his rebuttal to your post.

diverdog
11/23/2011, 03:34 PM
Let me save Midtowner the trouble............"quit cherry picking", I doubt the validity of those documents".

There, that will fully cover his rebuttal to your post.


In this case he is probably right.

Dale Ellis
11/23/2011, 03:46 PM
In this case he is probably right.

why do you liberals "DEMAND" that other back their claims with more than just opinion, then when they do, you just dismiss it. Again, intellectual dishonesty. When you refuse to accept what you know to be true, how can anyone have any type of honest debate with you?

49r
11/23/2011, 04:11 PM
Everybody get out your tinfoil helmets! We're in for a bumpy ride!!!

diverdog
11/23/2011, 04:38 PM
why do you liberals "DEMAND" that other back their claims with more than just opinion, then when they do, you just dismiss it. Again, intellectual dishonesty. When you refuse to accept what you know to be true, how can anyone have any type of honest debate with you?


Why do you Demand that I accept your version of the truth? I have no idea the context of these emails and neither do you. Yeah some of the seem damning but does that negate all their work? Did you see the study of their data last year that was peer reviewed?

I have no idea if global warming is man made or not. What I do know is it is a lot warming than it use to be. I am willing to accept there will be vigorous scientific and political debate by both sides and I am taking a wait and see approach to this issue.

soonercruiser
11/23/2011, 05:37 PM
Huh!

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

I love this cartoon!
:joyous:

bigfatjerk
11/24/2011, 08:12 AM
Why do you Demand that I accept your version of the truth? I have no idea the context of these emails and neither do you. Yeah some of the seem damning but does that negate all their work? Did you see the study of their data last year that was peer reviewed?

I have no idea if global warming is man made or not. What I do know is it is a lot warming than it use to be. I am willing to accept there will be vigorous scientific and political debate by both sides and I am taking a wait and see approach to this issue.

Depends on when you are talking about. In human history, maybe but it's not like the temperature has really changed that dramatically in human history. The real dramatic changes happened in most of the billions of years before we existed. We are pretty petty compared to what the planet has been through over it's life time. We've only been around a few hundred thousand years compared to billions and have had heavy industry for maybe 200 of those years.

But global warming isn't a government problem that it can fix. We can't even fix our own school system or health care system through government. We can't keep our military focused on goals through our government. What makes you think any government action toward global warming will really work?

diverdog
11/24/2011, 08:55 AM
Depends on when you are talking about. In human history, maybe but it's not like the temperature has really changed that dramatically in human history. The real dramatic changes happened in most of the billions of years before we existed. We are pretty petty compared to what the planet has been through over it's life time. We've only been around a few hundred thousand years compared to billions and have had heavy industry for maybe 200 of those years.

But global warming isn't a government problem that it can fix. We can't even fix our own school system or health care system through government. We can't keep our military focused on goals through our government. What makes you think any government action toward global warming will really work?

I do not get this entire mantra by the right that the government can't tackle big problems. Who rebuilt Japan and Europe after WWIi? Hell who beat Japan and Germany? Do you think there is a single business that could do Operation Overlord or send a man to the moon or build the US interstate system? How about building the electrical infrastructure in the US or eradicate polluted drinking water? I could go on. Of course the government could deal with global warming because it is going to have to deal with it.

I do not disagree with you about natural warming. The issue we have now is that there are billions of people and any major disruption in water supplies could have major consequences as far as security issues and things like famine. One way or another global climate change is going to cause governments to spend lots of money. I live in a coastal state and we are seeing the effects from global sea level rise. It is an issue we will be dealing with for a long time.

BTW technology is amazing. I am typing on my iPad in the back of my car in Eastern NC.

dwarthog
11/24/2011, 08:57 AM
Depends on when you are talking about. In human history, maybe but it's not like the temperature has really changed that dramatically in human history. The real dramatic changes happened in most of the billions of years before we existed. We are pretty petty compared to what the planet has been through over it's life time. We've only been around a few hundred thousand years compared to billions and have had heavy industry for maybe 200 of those years.

But global warming isn't a government problem that it can fix. We can't even fix our own school system or health care system through government. We can't keep our military focused on goals through our government. What makes you think any government action toward global warming will really work?

Enough with the common sense already. Sheesh. :)

Midtowner
11/24/2011, 10:35 AM
Even assuming ad arguendo that everything claimed by OP is true and in context, do you not think that emails out there detailing strategy sessions between individuals pushing the pro-pollution climate deniers' agenda exist? These are the kinds of conversations which happen routinely between PR folks.

A discussion on PR strategy between a couple of wonks really doesn't prove anything except that there are folks out there who are pushing for wider acceptance of the idea of man-made climate change. And there are plenty (like the website OP cut and pasted from) which are pushing for the rejection of that concept.

Do you think either side's entrenched interests care what the truth actually is?

soonercruiser
11/24/2011, 02:53 PM
I do not get this entire mantra by the right that the government can't tackle big problems. Who rebuilt Japan and Europe after WWIi? Hell who beat Japan and Germany? Do you think there is a single business that could do Operation Overlord or send a man to the moon or build the US interstate system? How about building the electrical infrastructure in the US or eradicate polluted drinking water? I could go on. Of course the government could deal with global warming because it is going to have to deal with it.

I do not disagree with you about natural warming. The issue we have now is that there are billions of people and any major disruption in water supplies could have major consequences as far as security issues and things like famine. One way or another global climate change is going to cause governments to spend lots of money. I live in a coastal state and we are seeing the effects from global sea level rise. It is an issue we will be dealing with for a long time.

BTW technology is amazing. I am typing on my iPad in the back of my car in Eastern NC.

Diver, We don't get your mantra either!
But what you said is the only thing that the government does well (albeit expensively)...
Let the "other poor sumzabit** die for his country"!
The Military!

TheHumanAlphabet
11/26/2011, 12:03 AM
The data is bearing out, no global warming. The temps and co2 is not rising like the models predicted, at least not as fast as predicted. I bet that as they look at the station obs and correct for heat island effect, urban encroachment, etc. There will be little temp change globally.

dwarthog
11/26/2011, 11:58 AM
I do not get this entire mantra by the right that the government can't tackle big problems. Who rebuilt Japan and Europe after WWIi? Hell who beat Japan and Germany? Do you think there is a single business that could do Operation Overlord or send a man to the moon or build the US interstate system? How about building the electrical infrastructure in the US or eradicate polluted drinking water? I could go on. Of course the government could deal with global warming because it is going to have to deal with it.

I do not disagree with you about natural warming. The issue we have now is that there are billions of people and any major disruption in water supplies could have major consequences as far as security issues and things like famine. One way or another global climate change is going to cause governments to spend lots of money. I live in a coastal state and we are seeing the effects from global sea level rise. It is an issue we will be dealing with for a long time.

BTW technology is amazing. I am typing on my iPad in the back of my car in Eastern NC.

Hubris.

There is a significant difference between bricks and mortar and controlling the climate on a planetary scale.

All of the political issues aside, one small mistake and we could turn the planet into an ice cube, or make it in some other way basically uninhabitable to the vast majority of people.

So what if a few islander's are displaced in the short term while we make sure we have this right?

The stakes are too high to run around having organizations that plot how to sell a message etc., if the data is good and stands up to peer scientific review etc., this is a good thing.

sappstuf
11/26/2011, 12:34 PM
I do not get this entire mantra by the right that the government can't tackle big problems. Who rebuilt Japan and Europe after WWIi? Hell who beat Japan and Germany? Do you think there is a single business that could do Operation Overlord or send a man to the moon or build the US interstate system? How about building the electrical infrastructure in the US or eradicate polluted drinking water? I could go on. Of course the government could deal with global warming because it is going to have to deal with it.

I do not disagree with you about natural warming. The issue we have now is that there are billions of people and any major disruption in water supplies could have major consequences as far as security issues and things like famine. One way or another global climate change is going to cause governments to spend lots of money. I live in a coastal state and we are seeing the effects from global sea level rise. It is an issue we will be dealing with for a long time.

BTW technology is amazing. I am typing on my iPad in the back of my car in Eastern NC.

Considering sea levels have only raised about 6 inches in the past 100 years, you must have a very keen eye.

:frog:

KABOOKIE
11/26/2011, 03:10 PM
You gotta love climate idiots. Build a house feet from the ocean and when it gets destroyed by hurricane its global warming.

soonercruiser
11/26/2011, 05:35 PM
Enough with the common sense already. Sheesh. :)

In the minds of the Left, the government is the fix for everything!
There isn't anything that the gobment won't waste $Billions on to prove it too!

diverdog
11/27/2011, 08:04 PM
Hubris.

There is a significant difference between bricks and mortar and controlling the climate on a planetary scale.

All of the political issues aside, one small mistake and we could turn the planet into an ice cube, or make it in some other way basically uninhabitable to the vast majority of people.

So what if a few islander's are displaced in the short term while we make sure we have this right?

The stakes are too high to run around having organizations that plot how to sell a message etc., if the data is good and stands up to peer scientific review etc., this is a good thing.

dwart:

I am not talking about controlling the climate although I am for better pollution control. My point is we are going to be dealing with this issue and that may mean strategic retreats from coastal properties, better water conservation measures and developing more drought resistant strains of grain.

diverdog
11/27/2011, 08:07 PM
Considering sea levels have only raised about 6 inches in the past 100 years, you must have a very keen eye.

:frog:
Sapp 6 inch increase in water levels is a lot Add 6 inches on the highest tides and you are talking lots of flooding in these parts. It will causing a lot of destruction of coastal wetlands and we are seeing that all along the coast right now.

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ClimateChange/Pages/climatechangewetlandsloss.aspx

diverdog
11/27/2011, 08:08 PM
You gotta love climate idiots. Build a house feet from the ocean and when it gets destroyed by hurricane its global warming.

No it is called stupidity.

Guess what? You are also paying taxes to protect that house.

dwarthog
11/27/2011, 08:31 PM
dwart:

I am not talking about controlling the climate although I am for better pollution control. My point is we are going to be dealing with this issue and that may mean strategic retreats from coastal properties, better water conservation measures and developing more drought resistant strains of grain.

I am in 100% agreement with regards to our stewardship of the environment. We need to do a far better job. Clean air, clean water, there really isn't a valid argument against either of those.

I am just "concerned", based on what I have seen and read, that some folks on the "progressive" side of the house will use something like this to enact some draconian measures based on an apocalyptic creation of events if they aren't "believed", no questions asked.

diverdog
11/27/2011, 09:46 PM
I am in 100% agreement with regards to our stewardship of the environment. We need to do a far better job. Clean air, clean water, there really isn't a valid argument against either of those.

I am just "concerned", based on what I have seen and read, that some folks on the "progressive" side of the house will use something like this to enact some draconian measures based on an apocalyptic creation of events if they aren't "believed", no questions asked.

That would not be me.

AlboSooner
11/27/2011, 10:06 PM
There has never been any real scientific evidence that the Earth is warming due to green house gases, but reducing green house gases seems like a good solution to me.
Reducing pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality should not be political issues.

sappstuf
11/28/2011, 01:06 AM
Sapp 6 inch increase in water levels is a lot Add 6 inches on the highest tides and you are talking lots of flooding in these parts. It will causing a lot of destruction of coastal wetlands and we are seeing that all along the coast right now.

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ClimateChange/Pages/climatechangewetlandsloss.aspx

6 inches over 100 years.. That is about 1.7mm per year. You can't see 1.7mm a year.. How many trillions of dollars do you think we should invest to try and stop 1.7mm a year?

From your link.


Usually wetlands can keep up with gradual sea level rise through continuous vegetative growth and a healthy sediment supply from upstream rivers and tributaries. If sediment supply into the estuary system becomes reduced, or sea level rise outpaces growth, wetlands can become inundated and, for all intensive purposes, reduced to open-water areas.

If 1.7mm a year isn't gradual then nothing is. Sounds like if you have a problem it lies elsewhere, although I doubt it. I see a lot of scare mongering in that article that sounds suspiciously like all the IPCC comments about "By the end of the century..". Of course all of those had to be stripped out because they were not actually backed by science. It wouldn't surprise me if this "study" fell into the same category.

TheHumanAlphabet
11/28/2011, 10:16 AM
Guess what? You are also paying taxes to protect that house.

That needs to be fixed. You are stupid enough to build a home on a beach that erodes, you deserve to lose said house when Ma Nature comes along and decides to reclaim the beach. No bail out, not suing , no nothing. Oops, so sorry for your loss, now move along, nothing here for you anymore...

TheHumanAlphabet
11/28/2011, 10:19 AM
There has never been any real scientific evidence that the Earth is warming due to green house gases, but reducing green house gases seems like a good solution to me.
Reducing pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and improving air quality should not be political issues.

I agree here, you want to make an impact, fine and good. Good on ya! But the EU **** of taxing the "carbon" content of fuel for flyers and Australia new carbon scheme stuff is crap and needs to go. I recycle, because I was taught to not waste resources, but I don't think it shoul dbe a government mandate...

diverdog
11/28/2011, 03:45 PM
That needs to be fixed. You are stupid enough to build a home on a beach that erodes, you deserve to lose said house when Ma Nature comes along and decides to reclaim the beach. No bail out, not suing , no nothing. Oops, so sorry for your loss, now move along, nothing here for you anymore...

Human:

It is out of control. I have seen a $50 million dollar beach replenishment wiped out in a single storm. And what is worse they do it again and guess what happens? Yep gone in the next storm.

soonercruiser
11/28/2011, 10:57 PM
Sapp 6 inch increase in water levels is a lot Add 6 inches on the highest tides and you are talking lots of flooding in these parts. It will causing a lot of destruction of coastal wetlands and we are seeing that all along the coast right now.

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ClimateChange/Pages/climatechangewetlandsloss.aspx

Diver,
What is the water level effect when high tide occurs when the moon is nearest trhe Earth?
What raise in water levels come with Noreasters?